Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

moderators_are_w*nke writes "The BBC have picked up a report from 'internet intelligence' company Envisional showing illegal film downloading is up 33% in the UK since 2006. The solution is apparently for content providers to 'compete with piracy and get their content out there themselves as easily and as quickly and as cheaply as possible.'"

Except that Steam is DRMed shit. If anything what is needed is a GOG or Amazon music or other DRM free thing for movies. If I buy something I don't want some random suit somewhere deciding I can't have it anymore and flipping a proverbial switch that invalidates my purchase.

While I agree with you that we should have more outfits like GOG.com, Steam is a lot better than some of the other DRM out there. It's incredibly easy to break, doesn't install false drivers, allows offline backup/restore and play of games, etc. And the good thing is that once you break it for one game, you've basically broken it for all the games. (The exception is the few games that also include other DRM.)

The only thing that I wish Steam would allow is transfer of games between accounts; gifting of a "us

I'm glad that your personal experience is the sum total by which the universe is judged. Never mind all the others who have had their Steam accounts locked or banned. They're not you so they don't exist or matter.

Steam may be DRM, but they're incredibly smart in that they've made getting and playing content easier than BitTorrent and cracking. Time and time again, people have pointed out that this is the only way to compete with copyright violation, and the success of Steam is proof in the pudding.

Steam may be DRM, but they're incredibly smart in that they've made getting and playing content easier than BitTorrent and cracking. Time and time again, people have pointed out that this is the only way to compete with copyright violation, and the success of Steam is proof in the pudding.

If you ever run across the headline "Steam shutting its doors", make a point to read the comments then.

LoveFilm has a very limited streaming selection, and even for DVDs it's typically possible to get the film from illegal sources months before the DVD release. I have things on my LoveFilm queue that have been in the 'awaiting release' category for over a year. It's like the media companies don't want my money...

Here's a tip that doesn't involve any torrents. Take any fetish you have, and put it into Google along with the term 'tube'. If you ever exhaust that supply, well, you might want to seek professional help.

Honestly I wonder how the porn industry makes any money anymore. It must all be off of people over the age of 35 who don't know how the internet works.

That's cute, but you see Mr. AC, when you're going to watch something for 2+ hours, a lot of people prefer it not to look like pixelated trash. These people buy movies.

Now I can only speak for myself, but I think that porn a) isn't necessarily linear for most who grew up online and b) doesn't require the same degree of quality as it's usually a 30ish minute exercise anyway.

But you see that is a lie. There are artists who draw erotic imagery for fun, and even though the best usually end up taking commissions, almost nobody starts at that level. Further, other people get off on exhibition and make and post recordings of their intercourse without (perceivable) cost (bandwidth costs are usually defrayed by ads, etc.).

You're also disregarding the market of secondary products, a lot a big name stars make money from selling physical items such as autographed things.

That might be a comforting idea to you in your advanced age, but actually, as a class, no. The over 35 crowd that actually developed the internet was vanishingly small. They were a minority in society even if they once were a majority of internet users and developers. It wasn't until Millennials and later that a whole generation became native internet users and developers, and that was actually a social tipping point that dragged the previous generations in where before they had shunned the minority of thei

Will never happens, they live in the past, not in the future. Such a thing just isn't possible for them to even imagine.

Media companies always live in the past. There is always a business model that transforms the industry until it becomes outdated yet held on to even as it drags the industry down in to near collapse. Then someone finally adapts to reality by implementing a new business model and the survivors all jump ship. Reality often involves disruptive technology. You can see this in the history of Hollywood (studio system, television) and music (radio).

they know exactly how obsolete their business model is. however that isn't going to prevent them from milking it for everything it is worth. until they themselves concluded nothing more could be gain from it, they will persist. the politicians in their pockets will assist, irrespective of what the populace might think, or how loud the complains might be.

It's about frikken time someone admitted that! I've been saying for years that I don't pirate stuff because it's free - I pirate stuff because it's the only way I can get the product that I want, without DRM and without archaic physical media, and that will actually work on my Linux HTPC.

And your download rate gets almost completely destroyed as a result. Other peers/leachers try to find the peers/seeds they can get the highest download rate from, so will disconnect from you if you don't send them anything. Leaving you with any seeds there might be, which are usually overloaded.

When I watch a movie or a TV episode I might watch it again in a few years if it was extremely good and memorable, but I would consider it a complete waste of my time to even consider watching most things more than once. Ever.

I am pretty sure that most people that aren't glued to a TV set watching endless reruns of Judge Judy to feel that way. I do know there are some people that can pretty much watch the same 40-minute TV episode of something three times in a row (or more) without finding it repetitous,

I think it's more that if you watch one episode from a television show, you know that you know if you like it or not. When you have bought the real thing, you don't watch the one you downloaded.

The price you pay for the boxset of a television series is for the convenience and without the adverts. You don't even have to watch them more than once for it it to be worthwhile. If you wanted to watch X hours of entertainment, that's the going rate and it's cheaper than the theater. I buy the boxset after it comes

You may not be a pirate, but you're a copyright infringer, so there is financial incentive for people to measure your type of behavior and to find you. No, not to stop you, but to get you to pay for a large settlement. If they can get you to buy the DVDs and also pay a few extra thousand for your "crime" that is a win/win for everyone.

In the next decade, it will rapidly become impossible to 'buy' music or movies. You will only be able to buy access licenses (keyed to individual hashed hardware ala WGA) to watch a DRM stream. And the licenses will not be for lifetime access, but merely a yearly, monthly, or most likely per-view rental fee.

Sadly, due to how the industry tries to abuse it's paying customers it is actually much easier to participate in a torrent swarm than to create your own similar media files from the physical disks you already own. This is a practical issue caused by the industry's own paranoia and disrespect for the paying customer.

As someone who uses the more legitimate approach, I really can't fault anyone else for not wanting to bother

This kinda reminds me of the Harry Potter books. The Gryffindor sword was made by goblins, and it's stored in Hogwart's castle. Goblins, however, think it belongs to them, since it was made by them, and sold to Gryffindor (and only him), it should be returned to them after his death, and not passed on to anyone else.

Sadly, due to how the industry tries to abuse it's paying customers it is actually much easier to participate in a torrent swarm than to create your own similar media files from the physical disks you already own. This is a practical issue caused by the industry's own paranoia and disrespect for the paying customer.

This is a bit of a peeve for me. When I buy a DVD or CD, it's generally ripped to our media server in fairly short order, and the disk is placed safely in a drawer. [Note for any lawyer-wannabe: format shifting your media is perfectly legal where I live.]

Unfortunately, some companies go to considerable lengths to obfuscate the structure of their DVD. The Teaching Company is one of the worst, and we've bought almost a hundred of their DVDs. Tricks range from a need to rely on the BUP instead of the IFO, t

They're known for falsifying published figures inside and outside of trials.

It holds very little weight. They have a vested interest to make it seem worse than it is. Provenance. If you search RIAA and misleading, you get lots of results.

Give me a university backed study, not backed by the RIAA and I might feel sympathy. In other news, the 20xxs are the year of the independent artist using the internet to distribute and market music and movies. Good news!

It helps if you know that the show does not air in the UK and is a spinoff a series that I do like. Does that answer your question?

If it was on TV, how would it have been any different if it was recorded automatically by VHS? Someone just shared their VHS of that publicly broadcasted show (except not in the UK). Which I then watched then paid for.

I completely agree that the cost of movies is getting stupid. I watched Transformers 3 last night (it's pretty crap, but the sequence in the city is amazing) and two tickets cost me 18GBP.

For the 2D version.

Fortunately I have Orange Wednesdays so I get two tickets for the price of one, 9GBP and then we split the cost, so 4.50GBP, which is a bit more reasonable and what it should have cost to start with (I'm in London BTW).

I think you should be able to stream the latest releases even while they're in the cinema. For some movies I'd stream them but others I'd go to the cinema to see them on as large a screen as possible.

I had a similar experience but with the 3D version. It was 10 GBP plus 1GBP for the glasses! Rip off.

There are sequences in that film that are really good fun. Unfortunately there is a lot of bad acting and ridiculous pro-American propaganda.

The scene that left me gawping was when the voiceover said the Autobots agreed to help the US 'save humans from themselves'. The scene showed a nuclear power plant subtitled 'Illegal Nuclear Site' with Libya flags. Very offensive.

The irony is that the film is all about freedom and yet freedoms in America are being taken away everyday (Slashdot YROs etc) Plus America supresses the freedoms of other nations too, UK, Libya, Iraq, Vietnam, Guatemala and so on.

Other than that, the action is good fun but thoughtless. I found the prisoner scene with the Eeinstein robot particularly disturbing.

Wait... How are we suppressing the Libyans freedom at the moment? You have at least some argument for the others but last I checked we were providing at least a little support for the freedom of the Libyan people.

This is offtopic but do I believe that we're in this war to support the rebels? It can't possibly be for something we want [wikipedia.org]. It [wikipedia.org] has [google.co.uk] happened [blogspot.com] once [wikipedia.org], it will happen again [bbc.co.uk].

It is also incorrect as far as Libya is concerned. The US does not have an oil interest in Lybia, their oil goes almost exclusively to Europe. Qaddafi has been a thorn in our side for decades, our selfish reason for intervening in Libya is removing him, and that just happens to promote the freedom of the Libyan people as well.

Libya has signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty and it is therefore plausible that a nuclear site used to develop nuclear weapons in Libya could be considered "illegal", it is ha

Don't give them permission to continue to drive up prices. That is don't go. I've stopped going myself, but I have more important things to spend money on.

Set the money not spent on tickets aside for a number of months/years necessary to acquire a decent home theater setup. Get the movies free at the library or start a movie club with other like minded individuals. If enough people do it, eventually the theaters will push back on the movie makers to reduce ticket prices. But as long as the makers/producers

Envisional [envisional.com] entire business is based on helping companies find out when their stuff is being downloaded illegally. Of course their study will show that piracy is as exploding... at about the same pace as what they're projecting for next quarter's profits.

I was listening to that report on the radio, some of the reasons to explain this were:
- faster broadband
- user friendlier download sites
- people not finding it wrong to download illegal content
But they didn't mention how jobless people are supposed to find the money for legit content?... My question is this: Is it ok to draw a parellel between stealing a loaf of bread from a baker and downloading a pirated movie or music file?

Dear Virgin Media. You (try to) charge me approximately Â£4-Â£5 for a 24 hour window of opportunity to stream a bunch of bits to the cable box over there. Or I can use the exact same cable to stream much the same bunch of bits to the network card and hard drive over here, and then I can decode them as many times as I like, indefinitely, at an extra cost of Â£0.

I'm not saying that I'd actually do either of these things, but you really aren't making it easy for me to pick the former.

I wonder if the Universal Pictures / Lovefilm dispute [wikipedia.org] has had an impact. Since November 2009 Universal Pictures have refused to make their movies available to most online DVD-rental services. So you want to see one of their movies you have to pirate it, buy it, or switch to Blockbuster.

I live in Germany and I admire many BBC productions. The problem is, after many years of the industry 'fighting piracy', they are still missing the obvious.

Yes, I consider myself a "TV show pirate". Why am I pirating? Let's say I want to watch the newest Doctor Who. There are a few ways to watch it:

- legally: Visit UK: Expensive.- legally: Buy a huge satellite dish and watch/record it. Expensive and complicated, not possible anywhere.- legally: Wait month for DVD.- legally: Wait 5 years for any TV station to pick the show up again and show it in Germany with bad synchronization.- somewhat legally: watch it on BBCs iplayer via Proxy: Complicated to set up, often slow- probably illegally: download it from Filehoster/Newsgroup: easiest and cheapest, also fast.

So why am I pirating: I'm always picking the fastest, most comfortable and maybe the cheapest way. But I would pay for it, as I would pay for a filehoster or newsgroup provider.

BBC and others: If you want me to stop piracy, please make a platform that- is available everywhere where I have internet access- that provides TV shows or movies to an affordable price, with original audio- that provides TV shows in decent quality (720p), unencrypted- that provides TV shows immediately after being screened.

BBC stuff is horrible when it comes to pricing. They are absolute dead last on my shopping list when it comes to content. There's just too much other cheaper stuff out there to get my attention. Now I have started watching some of their stuff on Netflix because it's there and it's cheap enough. If not for their prima donna pricing, I would have a lot more of their stuff (bought and paid for even).

Envisional’s business is built around unique, patented search technologies and a superb team of experienced analysts.
We use this powerful combination to help corporations protect themselves and their customers from fraud, fakes, piracy and online brand abuse.

Maybe the solution is to just not care about it? Are the movie producers really gaining anything by chasing filesharers and buying parliamentarians? And aren't they still making loads of money, even with today's massive filesharing?

I own CDs because I had the habit of owning records. I came to own records because, in every Parade Magazine in the 1970s, the Columbia Record club offered an astounding 12 albums for one penny. You just had to join the club and agree to try/buy an album each month, and had the right to return the album if you were not completely satisfied. Of course, kids like me wound up paying more and buying a lot of music, and sometimes got an album we didn't like but didn't return (and there was a used record stor

It's only looking at the 5 most-downloaded in each category. My question is, why look only at the top 5? Comparing download counts of the top 5 most downloaded in each category hardly seems like an accurate general measurement.

"The solution is apparently for content providers to 'compete with piracy and get their content out there themselves as easily and as quickly and as cheaply as possible'"
I agree. Let me rent it online right after it's theater run, instead of waiting 3 to 5 months to wait for the DVD release!
We all know the torrents are available immediately in some cases....some of us don't mind paying if we are given the chance!

Baby steps here, there is no way that the movie companies would ever take that big of a leap of faith.
I'd be happy if they would make movies available for streaming on Netflix at the same time they are available on disk.

Considering it used to be 1-2 years after a movie was out in theaters that it was finally available to watch at home, I would say we are moving in the right direction. And I would rather wait to watch a DVDrip than some shaky, crappy, cam version of a movie. Those ruin the experience completely.

Absolutely. Kill off all theater sales and movie theaters because they are old, dirty and outmoded. Why not just release the movie on DVD at the same time as in the theater?

You do understand the only thing keeping a lot of theaters going is the fact that if you want to see the movie this year you have to go to the theater? If you are willing to wait until next year, fine, it will be out on DVD.

Just like a losing strategy in Afganistan is telling the Taliban all they have to do is wait a little longer to

> Brilliant solution, If it's easier to get it legally, most would prefer it to illegal methods.
Or maybe not. When you look at the music business, and consider that there are DRM-free ways to get music through iTunes and Amazon, or unlimited streaming services like Rhapsody, but then consider that per-capita, inflation-adjusted music sales have fallen by 60-70% in the past 10 years, it suggests to me that legal services are not preferred to illegal ones. (People talk about iTunes likes it's some mass

It's a false dichotomization of the market though. It's not just legal vs. illegal, but commercial vs. free as well. Before the internet free music (aside from radio which hasn't gone anywhere) essentially didn't exist because of production and distribution costs. Now I have thousands of tracks of free-as-in-non-commercial music and more is produced all the time. This pressure along with others such as the elimination of false scarcity is driving the price of music to consumers down, and that generally mean

The problem with iTunes and Amazon is that for the most part, buying an Album on iTunes still costs about the same as buying a physical CD. Maybe 10% cheaper. But then again, sometimes the physical CD is cheaper. This is why people aren't buying more stuff from iTunes and similar services. iTunes should probably be about a quarter for a single track, and about $3-$4 for an album, then you will see sales rise. With no physical product to move, there should be no reason it costs anywhere close to the sa

There is some music that I have bought in multiple formats as those formats came along. CDs were introduced in the 80s and continued to become more predominant through out the 90s. Any sales statistics starting from the tail end of the 90s or 2000 include some of this artificial churn created by the transition between formats. There are a lot of recordings that I had on tape but never bothered with on CD and a lot of things I bought again.

Yup, there's been a marked decline in the amount of money Hollywood is making over the last decade and a half. They're really hurting now. Oh wait, no there hasn't: http://www.the-numbers.com/market/ [the-numbers.com].

And the huge irony? I now spend more a month (every month, without fail) on usenet than I have ever or likely would ever spend on buying physical media. Before usenet, I just went without or listened to the radio (fwiw!) watched the TV.

I dont get what they studios are scared of? Its a constant revenue stream, the holy grail of business models, yet they seem blind to this concept. Baffling.

You know, if you sell stuff that people want, then you might find that people will be inclined to buy from you... but no